from the good-luck-with-that-argument dept

John Steele and Paul Hansmeier (who various courts have made clear, make up the core of "Team Prenda") are engaged in so many different lawsuits in which they're getting hit with so many different orders to pay up for their questionable behavior that it may be difficult to keep up. However, in Northern California last month, Judge Edward Chen ruled that Steele and Hansmeier are liable for sanctions and attorneys' fees awarded against "AF Holdings," the semi-mysterious shell company set up in Nevis, which many people (including courts) have recognized was almost certainly set up by Steele and Hansmeier themselves as some sort of way to (a) hide the fact that they were representing themselves and (b) to hide where the money goes. Of course, as court after court has seen through this charade, things aren't looking good for Steele and Hansmeier who should be fearing the eventual law enforcement response to all of this, which is almost certainly approaching.

However, they just can't resist fighting the fight, because that's what they do. When backed into a complete corner, Steele and Hansmeier tend to go into attack mode, trying any and every argument they can possibly think of, no matter how insane. But, and here's the key, they make those arguments with extreme confidence, as if only a moron would think they were wrong. The reality, of course, is that almost all of their claims are laughable. Take for example, the latest one in response to Judge Chen's ruling. Steele and Hansmeier have filed very, very similar filings that (among a few other arguments) try to argue that they cannot be found to be considered the "alter ego" of AF Holdings because Nevis law says that can only be done with the permission of the people being claimed to be the alter ego.

Under Nevis law, accordingly, a person may become an alter ego of a limited liability company only with his or her express consent.

Yes, AF Holdings was registered in Nevis, but if Steele and Hansmeier automatically think that means they can avoid liability in California, their legal skills are even worse than previously expected. Remember AF Holdings was the one who sued first... in California. The issue here is who is responsible for the absolutely bogus lawsuit. And the Court has very good reason, and significant evidence to support, that it's John Steele and Paul Hansmeier. Pretending that registering the company in Nevis somehow gives them a get-out-of-jail-free card is laughable.

Meanwhile, across the country, in the one case where Prenda actually seemed to be having some success, in front of former RIAA lobbyist Beryl Howell, John Steele has withdrawn as counsel and substituted Prenda buddy Paul Duffy. That, alone, isn't particular noteworthy -- these three guys seem to pass around cases like a group of high school kids under the bleachers passing around a joint. However, what is noteworthy is that in filing this, Steele notes that the "Plaintiff consents to Attorney Steele's withdrawal in this matter, as noted by his signature below." Who's the plaintiff? Why, it's the very same AF Holdings. And whose "signature" is it? Why, it's "Mark Lutz." And the date of the signature is... November 5th.

That's interesting. Because back at the end of September, Mark Lutz continued his magic disappearing act by not appearing in a Minnesota court, despite being ordered to be there. Hansmeier was given until the next day to explain the disappearance, and filed a substance-free brief that basically said, "I'm sure Lutz has a good reason, which he'll tell you about when he can." Specifically, Hansmeier told the court:

Based on my prior experience with Mr. Lutz, including Mr. Lutz's in-person attendance before this Court on August 5, 2012, I believe that Mr. Lutz will be able to provide a good-faith reason for failing to make his flight to Minnesota.

While there has been plenty of activity in the docket for this case (including Hansmeier's weak attempt to get magistrate judge Franklin Noel kicked off the case), there has been nothing from Lutz since Hansmeier's promise on October 1st that Lutz would explain what happened. In fact, he hasn't appeared anywhere.

But... suddenly his signature appears on November 5th in a different circuit? Hmm. It would appear he's fairly tardy in getting in his explanation. Of course, there's been some chatter on Twitter wondering if this is really Lutz's signature. We have examples of his actual signature on previous filings, so you can compare. Here's the latest one, supposedly from November 5th:

My gut reaction is that those were not written by the same person, but I'm not a handwriting expert, so we'll give Lutz the benefit of the doubt. I found another Lutz signature that looks more like the first, but it's not notarized -- and I've got a lot more confidence in the notarized version.

Of course, here's the issue. If we give Steele and Lutz the benefit of the doubt here that the signature is legitimate -- and I'm willing to do exactly that -- it would appear that they've got a different problem to deal with: the fact that Lutz never explained his absence in Minnesota. I'm trying to think if there's any other option. Either Lutz has flat out ignored a court order in Minnesota, or someone forged his name in DC. If anyone can come up with any other option, I'm all ears. I guess there's the possibility, also, that both things are true -- that he both ignored a court order and had his signature forged -- but that doesn't make the situation any better...

Suggested response:

Prenda: Under Never law, accordingly, a person may become an alter ego of a limited liability company only with his or her express consent.

Judge: That's nice, but here in the US, you've been named responsible for fines and fees levied against AF Holdings, so get out the checkbooks you two.

Alternatively, if the judge was really feeling in a snarky mood, he could bring an atlas to the court, point out Nevis, point out California, and then explain, using small words, how despite Prenda's claims, Nevis is not actually California, part of it, or even remotely near it.

Also, is the 'Never' bit a typo in the legal filing, and therefor left intentionally, or an accident from typing it up for the article?

Re: Suggested response:

Re:

A majority of those 99 pages was filing the starter dodad thingy they filed for their appeal of Judge Wrights order.They are inviting this OTHER court to read their appeal and make decisions based on it... o_O

It is nice how he tried to throw Gibbs back under the bus, paint him as a turncoat who sold out his client, and the ever popular defense of we had nothing to do with that and even if we did it would totally be legal.

Re: Has Lutz ever been seen?

He has shown up in court before, yes, but not for a good while lately, which considering Prenda has been trying to paint him as the mastermind behind all of their actions, is probably not a coincidence.

Another thing that occurs to me, given Lutz has apparently vanished, the Prenda gang has a bit of a 'reputation' for playing fast and lose with signatures, and the signature in this case is being used to allow Steele to duck out of the case, it seems like it might be a good idea for the judge to order Lutz to give the 'authorization' in person, or sign a notarized document confirming the original, if for no other reason than either calling Steele's bluff/forgery, or verifying that Lutz is even still in the country.

Prenda are racking up an eviscerated understanding of the law so bad, they're reminding me of John Haigh's misinterpretation of "corpus delicti", except that this is far less painful and far more hilarious.

Oh, but naturally horse with no name, average_joe, out_of_the_blue and darryl will be quick to chime in their defense, claiming that all judges involved are IP-unfriendly and probably filthy pirates, too. Copyright enforcement's best and brightest.

I say the signature is a forgery. Back when I was in school, I used to forge my mother's signature in my homework journal all the time, so I had to get pretty good at it. So if I was to forge Lutz's signature, I'd make sure to at least make it resemble his own, which is not what I see above on the Nov 5 document.

Re:

It could simply be yet another case of overconfidence. The Prenda gang was 'borrowing' Cooper's signature for ages after all, with no-one the wiser, they're probably used to no-one even questioning the signatures.

Re: Re:

I can't help but find your name extremely fitting, as it takes some massive blinders to completely ignore any and all evidence of unethical, quasi-legal, and flat out illegal actions on the part of 'copyright's finest', and instead assume that it's the judges, all of them, who are one the wrong side of the law.

Alternatively, such dogged insistence of innocence could have another explanation, one backed by that little slip of yours at the end there, '...smear our good name.'

Can you say 'oops'?

Still, I must thank you, I, and others, can always depend on your hilarious posts to bring a guilt-free laugh, as laughing at an actual blind person is deplorable, whereas laughing at the willfully blind is always a good time.

Is he alive?

Re: Is he alive?

At this point the two theories seem to be:

A) Alive, but fled the country. (Most likely I'd say, and the one I'm guessing is true)

B) Not so alive, tossed in a ditch somewhere. (Possible, but unlikely)

I'm really hoping at some point a judge will order him to show up, and when that doesn't happen have a bench warrant written up to make him show up, as a sudden disappearance like what seems to have happened to Lutz really needs to be looked into, especially given Prenda is hanging so much of the blame on him as their newest scapegoat.

Re: A house of cards

Not exactly, money laundering is the process of 'washing' funds from illegal businesses/actions, by passing them through legal businesses and avenues, so that when they come out the money has a legal 'source' and explanation.

No, something like that would be more likely to fall under tax evasion, fraud, and similar laws; stuff which gets the IRS all jittery with excitement, and anything which perks up the IRS is usually considered a very bad thing for anyone they're interested in.

Re: Re:

John you let slip your real identity.

I think its hilarious that you don't seem to be able to win in court or even in a comments section on a blog against 'filthy pirates' (on a side note the Simalians might get a bit pissed off if you keep calling them filthy).

Re: Re: Is he alive?

'*our* good name'

That would make sense. No-one with enough cognitive ability to use a keyboard could follow Prenda very long and still think that they care the slightest bit about piracy and copyright protection. This is all about extorting people with threats of being salaciously smeared to squeeze out settlement money.

To follow these cases at all while asserting that they are about piracy would take the bold, brash dishonesty of Steel or Hans.

When backed into a complete corner, Steele and Hansmeier tend to go into attack mode, trying any and every argument they can possibly think of, no matter how insane.

Two things. First, vexatious litigants count on their right to have their arguments heard to bog down proceedings indefinitely.

Second, it could be a gambler's fallacy at work: the idea that they have to keep going to "make back" what they've lost. It's how people ended up with $5 on Deal or no Deal. Also, how casinos makes tons of money. Also, why I have a phobia of gambling.

Well, while it was me who first questioned the authenticity of Lutz's signature, I'm not so sure now. Here is another sample, and this one was signed by Lutz for sure: I communicated with the notary: she does not know Lutz, he just walked in, showed his ID and got his signature notarized.

It may be a different (and more plausible) theory: due to his dependency on "recreation," Lutz's level of sobriety is very volatile, hence his signature is inconsistent.

Re: "I say the signature is a forgery."

Some disclaimers. I'm not a handwriting expert. I've never qualified as any kind of expert witness. I'm merely speculating and expressing my opinion.

Having gotten the disclaimers out of the way, I would like to share a few observations.

As an (ex)artist, I see signatures as 'works of art'. From my perspective, the 'z' in both signatures could not possibly be by the same artist. On the other hand, the vertical sw/loops in the purported Nov BS5 Lutz signature match very closely in style and feel with Steele's on signature on the same document. Funny that.

I spent two years in college pursuing a fine arts degree. As part of that, I took 4 semesters of drawing. In addition to at least one major drawing every week, we were required to do 50 rough sketches each and every week. Am I being pointless here?

Not really. It meant that every week, we spent every Fri afternoon doing group critiques of each other's work. It didn't take very long be able to identify anyone's work the first time you saw it in class. This was one course of study where you couldn't pay anyone to do your homework for you.

Signatures are very personal pieces of individual art. It takes real talent and skill to (at first glance) successfully forge someone's signature.

I can't imagine any ven diagramm where the set including 'talent' and 'skill' intersect with the set 'Prenda Team'.

Re: "I say the signature is a forgery."

Some disclaimers. I'm not a handwriting expert. I've never qualified as any kind of expert witness. I'm merely speculating and expressing my opinion.

Having gotten the disclaimers out of the way, I would like to share a few observations.

As an (ex)artist, I see signatures as 'works of art'. From my perspective, the 'z' in both signatures could not possibly be by the same artist. On the other hand, the vertical sw/loops in the purported Nov BS5 Lutz signature match very closely in style and feel with Steele's on signature on the same document. Funny that.

I spent two years in college pursuing a fine arts degree. As part of that, I took 4 semesters of drawing. In addition to at least one major drawing every week, we were required to do 50 rough sketches each and every week. Am I being pointless here?

Not really. It meant that every week, we spent every Fri afternoon doing group critiques of each other's work. It didn't take very long be able to identify anyone's work the first time you saw it in class. This was one course of study where you couldn't pay anyone to do your homework for you.

Signatures are very personal pieces of individual art. It takes real talent and skill to (at first glance) successfully forge someone's signature.

I can't imagine any ven diagram where the set including 'talent' and 'skill' intersect with the set 'Prenda Team'.

The third theory, the one I subscribe to, is that Lutz is off on a serious drunk. Funded and encouraged by Steele.

His history of DUI and subsequent repeated need for Steele and Hansmeier assistance supports this. As does Steele's stories explaining Lutz's absence at hearings.

As for relying on Nevis law to avoid being named an alter ego, that's a weak argument.

We don't even know that Nevis law has any relation to the case. But since Steele brought it up, the door is open. We have a single document on point, a bad photocopy of the Nevis registration of AF Holdings. No document ties that corporate registration to any activities here. We have only testimony (from the Hansmeier deposition)and unsupported claims. There is no retention agreement. No evidence of direction being given to the attorneys by a principle. Lutz has consistently been unavailable for a deposition or cross examination. No money has flowed to or from AF. Its only claimed asset is a movie copyright assignment, which it apparently paid nothing for. And the assignment document contains a forged signature.

In short, there is no foundation for using AF Holdings to shield Steele's actions, and especially not for standing behind Nevis corporate law.

On the other side, we have the extensive evidence and testimony that Steele and Hansmeier conceived and directed this scheme. The OSC hearings were their opportunity to distance themselves from the "client". The burden of proof shifted to them, and they put nothing on the record to show that there was actually a distinct client. (Note that they wouldn't have need to testify to submit documents, so remaining silent doesn't excuse the lack of paper trail.)

Re: Re: Re:

Alternatively, such dogged insistence of innocence could have another explanation, one backed by that little slip of yours at the end there, '...smear our good name.'

Can you say 'oops'?

Actually, I think this is a misinterpretation.

I think he's saying "[Mike Masnick] will smear the good name of [average joe, horse with no name, and out_of_the_blue] by censoring my comment, but keeping the filth you've written about [those same people] visible.".

Still laughable, but I don't think there's any implication that he's in any way actually associated with the Prendarasts here.

So it appears the current plan is to just tie this damn thing up in as many courts as possible.Appeal after appeal after appeal.Seed in enough "evidence" that can be questioned as much as the JFK assassination, and these cases will carry on long past the lifetime of many of the Judges who might hear it.

And meanwhile, all of the money they got slowly dwindles away. We don't have debtors prisons anymore so them not being able to pay landing them in jail would be argued even further.

I am still curious, if we have a lawyer in the house (I know we do), there is caselaw I am aware of that allows people owed debts to seek to take real property when the person/entity refuses to pay up. How much time does it take to finally hit that point? Also can they then move for discovery to find assets and holdings that might have had ownership transferred in an attempt ot become judgement proof?

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Oh it's quite possible, but at the same time, members from Prenda have been caught trolling the comment sections of blogs covering their actions in the past.

Not only that, I find it somewhat hard to believe that someone who doesn't have a hefty stake in the outcome could so completely ignore the mountains of evidence against Prenda, insisting that the entire legal system is after them, rather than realizing that it's Prenda that's at fault, though given I've seen worse willful blindness, I admit that could be coincidence too.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Doubt it. Horse with no name's gimmick is ranting about how he's visited Asia and Europe (allegedly, he lives in Hong Kong, which would likely make him and TorrentFreak's idiot bobmail the same person given how he also rants about Masnick there), which makes him morally superior to judge everyone else's experiences, and how Masnick is blocking his spam forcing him to resort to proxies. John Steele's gimmick is boasting of his feats, which he hasn't done so in quite some time, leaving it to his attack dog Nazaire to shake his fist through emails.

horse with no name might not be into pornography, but anyone in support of the RIAA and copyright maximalism do have a vested interest in what's going on. Prenda has merely taken the RIAA's business model and leveraged on the element of sleaze to make their quick bucks, using the same ways of cutting corners to swiftly obtain thousand-dollar settlements from intimidated households. The RIAA gave any "content creator" the licence to whine "piracy!" to a judge and convince them to turn a blind eye to everything - legitimacy, evidence, etc.

Now thanks to Prenda being completely incompetent douchebags, that isn't the case. Even trolls (Malibu Media) desperately trying to distance themselves from Prenda are suffering setbacks (e.g. if you claim multiple Does are participating in the same infringement you only get to claim a maximum of $150,000 in total from Does, not $150,000 from each Doe). FCT has its own prolific sympathy troll Maurice Ross claiming that if the standards of evidence brought forward by plaintiffs and content creators is any higher than it currently is, they will starve.

They might not be Prenda - they might not like Prenda, as horse with no name loves to claim - but anyone bent on IP enforcement has a vested interest in the outcome.

Re: Re:

Flip-flop

Didn't Prenda, in one of their cases, try to tell the court that a court case in California shouldn't have any merit as it was a different state with different laws, like same-sex marriage? Now they are trying to arguing that a foreign country's laws should apply?

Re: Flip-flop

Yes. That "ignore California" argument was made in Georgia, by Prenda's rent-a-counsel, Nazaire. Prenda would of course say "that's different", because they wanted California judges ignored in Georgia but want the California judge to accept a Nevis statute. Funny that.